> I find this document utterly bizarre and think it would seriously damage the > Internet to publish it. This seems a little ... extreme. The document appears to me to be Mostly Harmless, with all that implies. > The idea that ipv6 should be regarded as normal, as of equal standing to ipv4 is > fine, the sort of statement that the IAB should make, or have made, as an RFC or > in some other form. > But this I-D claims > " Updates [RFC1122] to clarify that this document, especially in > section 3, primarily discusses IPv4 where it uses the more generic > term "IP" and is no longer a complete definition of "IP" or the > Internet Protocol suite by itself. " > IPv4 is a phenomenal success, and RFC1122 is a key part of that. IPv4 was a > confused jumble, as IPv6 is now, and RFC1122, with another two or so I-Ds, cut > through the cruft and rendered it usable. IPv6 desparately needs an equivalent > to RFC1122, Complete agreement on this point. Such a document, informed by actual IPv6 deployment experience at some sort of scale, is urgently needed. And this most certainly is NOT that document. But unless publishing this is seen as meeting the need for an 1122v6 - and I've seen no indication that's the case - I fail to see the harm. OTOH, if this really is seen as being a 1122v6, then I join you in opposing it's publication. > as a trawl of the v6ops list archives shows, and clearly this I-D is > never going to be it, but claiming that this I-D provides an update to RFC1122, > coupled > with its title, gives the message that there is not going to be such an I-D; > IPv6 will remain a confused jumble (and so is unlikely ever to emulate the > success of IPv4). Maybe I'm being clueless about this, but I don't see how "IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes" gives this impression. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf